Timothy Birdnow

Our old friend Daren Jonescu chronicles a study by Yale that shows liberals speak more condescendingly to minorities than do Conservatives.

From the Yale report:

According to new research by Cydney Dupree, assistant professor of organizational behavior at Yale SOM, white liberals tend to downplay their own verbal competence in exchanges with racial minorities, compared to how other white Americans act in such exchanges. The study is scheduled for publication in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

While many previous studies have examined how people who hold racial bias behave in multi-racial settings, few have studied how whites who are more well-intentioned interact with people of other races. "There’s less work that explores how well-intentioned whites try to get along with racial minorities,” Dupree says. "We wanted to know their strategies for increasing connections between members of different social groups—and how effective these strategies are.” End excerpt.

As Daren points out, the researcher tries desperately to impute good motives to the liberals as she is no doubt a member of that class herself.

From his article:

"She states that liberals speak in "simpler' terms to Again, the researcher is compelled to offer an anti-Republican slant to the findings. Democrats talk down to blacks more than Republicans do — but of course Republicans rarely talk to black audiences at all! To which we might ask, "What is a ‘black audience,’ and why would a politician seek to speak specifically to an audience made up exclusively of blacks?”

And an ounce of serious critical analysis, in light of the study’s findings, would suggest an easy answer to this question: They speak to audiences selected and designed as "black audiences” because they systematically wish to communicate with blacks in a less informative, mature, and educated way from the way they communicate with non-blacks; hence, they prefer to address all-black audiences separately from primarily white audiences.predominantly "black audiences". Daren asks "what is a black audience?"

[...]

"Furthermore, the implication of the researchers’ academic bias in defense of progressives is that conservatives, who do not downplay their intellectual level or language skills when speaking to black audiences, must not want to appear likeable and friendly — an implication which, given that this part of the study’s findings deals specifically with political candidates, is untenable in the extreme.

The real reason "conservatives” are less likely than "liberals” to fake lower levels of intelligence and linguistic competence when speaking to black audiences, however, is as obvious to any simple rational analysis as it is incomprehensible to one mired in today’s knee-jerk collectivist presuppositions, especially within the university culture.

"Conservatives” tend to think all people are individuals first, and thus that, regardless of what popular stereotypes might indicate about any given identity group, each new person one encounters must be treated as one’s equal by default, until and unless he or she proves otherwise."

End excerpts.

It must be remembered, the Democratic Party was the party of Jim Crow, of the Ku Klux Klan, of George Wallace. That they have taken on a new face does not mean they are somehow completely metamorphosed into a new thing; the roots of the old racist party are still very much alive. Instead of being openly racist the Democrats are now soft bigots.

And this has always been true of the academic types as well. It was born in east coast universities.

Eugenics was the brainchild of Francis Galton, cousin of Charles Darwin and based largely on Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection. It was very popular then among the intelligentsia (as now). Most of the advocacy for eugenics came from academia and the upper classes. They advocated sterilization for the poor, the sick, the mentally challenged and minorities. It was Margaret Sanger, for instance, who created Planned Parenthood for the express purpose of reducing the black population. Interestingly enough, the liberals see Planned Parenthood as a sacred cow, and are unwilling to so much as cut one penny of Federal funding from this baby killing operation.

American eugenics was supported by numerous universities, including black universities like Howard. Interestingly enough, a number of black intellectuals like W.E.B. Dubois supported it. He said:

"only fit blacks should procreate to eradicate the race's heritage of moral iniquity."

This was one of the founders of the NAACP.

The Carnegie Institute, the Rockefeller Foundation, the Kellogg Foundation all gave material support to the eugenics movement. All of these are left-wing organizations.

As of 1928 there were no fewer than 376 university courses in eugenics, per Black (9 November 2003). "Eugenics and the Nazis – the California connection". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved 2 February 2017.

The President of Stanford was a member of the American Breeder's Association, an eugenicist organization, for instance. Also, the League of Women Voters and the Women's Christian Temperance Movement - both feminist suffragette groups - staunchly supported it.

It should be pointed out that the Immigration Restriction League was founded to prevent "bad seeds" from immigrating to the U.S., and that was founded by three people from Harvard.

And the Progressives have always viewed people from the interior of the U.S. as toothless hillbillies. That attitude has never changed.

So it should come as no surprise that liberals, smug, self-satisfied, condescending - think less of minorities than do their conservative cousins, who in fact celebrate the fact that all men are created equal in the eyes of God. But then, most liberals don't believe those old "fairy tales" like God or the immortal soul.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:49 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 920 words, total size 7 kb.